P.L. Mani vs M.M. Thenappa Chettiar

T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—The landlord is the revision petitioner. He filed a petition for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction

and wilful default.

Both the courts below have dismissed the petition holding that there is no bona fide in respect of the request of demolition and reconstruction

and also that there is no wilful default. Further the courts below held that the tenant has put up the structure and that consequently the Rent Control

Court will have no jurisdiction. Hence, this revision.

The petitioner claimed in this petition that what was leased to the tenant was land and building. Therefore the Rent Control Court will have

jurisdiction. On the other hand, it was the contention of the tenant that the purpose of the lease should be considered as a prime factor. It may be

that at the time of the commencement of the lease the dilapidated building was there but the landlord has made it clear according to the tenant that

the tenant can demolish the structure and put up a building of his own for the purpose of enjoyment of the tenanted property and put it to the use

for which the tenancy was taken. This contention of the tenant has been accepted by the courts below which I think should be the proper view in

the matter.

It is no doubt true that the landlord in his petition came forward with the case that it was he who demolished the premises and put up the

structure and allowed the tenant to occupy. This contention was not believed by the courts below on the evidence adduced by the landlord and the

tenant. Probably the landlord is developing a case in the petition. While in fact the intention of both the landlord and the tenant at the time of leasing

the property was that the tenant must demolish the building and put up building at his cost for the convenience and proper enjoyment of the

property to serve the purpose of tenancy. In this case, the premises has been taken for the purpose of running a nursery school. Therefore for the

purpose of running a school it had become necessary for the tenant to demolish the structure standing on the land and put up his own structure like

thatched shed, small rooms and koodams for the purpose of running a school. The finding of the lower court is that such new constructions have

come on the land only at the cost and efforts of the tenant. Therefore it is not fair for the landlord to try to evict the tenant under the provisions of

the Rent Control Act when admittedly the building (within the meaning of the Act) has been put up by the tenant.

In my view, notwithstanding the fact that at the time of original lease there were structures in the land, the contract or agreement between the

parties should be the core of holding that what was leased to the tenant was building or land. If the purpose for which the premises is let out can be

served only by putting up a new structure at the choice and cost of the tenant certainly Act will not apply and such a tenancy shall be deemed to be

the tenancy of the land alone. In this case it has been clearly found as a fact that the old structures were demolished and new structures came

before actually the tenant began to enjoy the premises and put up the premises into use from day one of the tenancy. Rightly therefore the courts

below have held that the Rent Control Court will have no jurisdiction. Confirming the above view, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.

Dr. V. Subramanyan learned Counsel, whose name appears in the cause list and supposed to be representing the petitioner says that he has

returned the bundle to the party. But, I have disposed of the case on merits. Any how, the fact that Dr. Subramanyan has returned the bundle is

recorded.